In 2001 Cambridge University Press published Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which I thought was a perfect debate topic for the Skeptics Society public lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. The problem was that all the top environmental organizations refused to participate. "There is no debate," one spokesperson told me. "We don't want to dignify that book," another said. One leading environmentalist warned me that my reputation would be irreparably harmed if I went through with it. So of course I did.

My experience is symptomatic of deep problems that have long plagued the environmental movement. Activists who vandalize Hummer dealerships and destroy logging equipment are criminal ecoterrorists. Environmental groups who cry doom and gloom to keep donations flowing only hurt their credibility. As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I learned (and believed) that by the 1990s overpopulation would lead to worldwide starvation and the exhaustion of key minerals, metals and oil, predictions that failed utterly. Politics polluted the science and made me an environmental skeptic.

Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for "national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions" in carbon emissions.

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance.

Four books eventually brought me to the flipping point. Archaeologist Brian Fagan's The Long Summer (Basic, 2004) explicates how civilization is the gift of a temporary period of mild climate. Geographer Jared Diamond's Collapse (Penguin Group, 2005) demonstrates how natural and human-caused environmental catastrophes led to the collapse of civilizations. Journalist Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006) is a page-turning account of her journeys around the world with environmental scientists who are documenting species extinction and climate change unmistakably linked to human action. And biologist Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006) reveals how he went from being a skeptical environmentalist to a believing activist as incontrovertible data linking the increase of carbon dioxide to global warming accumulated in the past decade.

It is a matter of the Goldilocks phenomenon. In the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180 parts per million (ppm)--too cold. Between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, levels rose to 280 ppm--just right. Today levels are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach 450 to 550 by the end of the century--too warm. Like a kettle of water that transforms from liquid to steam when it changes from 99 to 100 degrees Celsius, the environment itself is about to make a CO2-driven flip.

According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 �41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants.

Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.

Yes because Gore and Prince Charles are experts... this is where you show your ignorance. I have said a million times, everyone knows(or should be smart enough to figure out) that people put urgency behind issues in order for things to get done, otherwise we would all be like you and wait until it's too late and our oil has run out. Every issue and political movement does this, just take a look at yourself and INDY for example. "World government", paranoia about forcing Americans to have only one child, labeling everything you don't understand as being "socialist"; you guys are the perfect example. Mirrors are wonderful things...

Thanks for admitting (in your own way) that the end of the world scenarios are bull. It may come as a shock to you but people don't like being lied to and fleeced even if it's good intentions [cough...cough].

I like Shermer. If he's the same guy that wrote those books on fighting superstition (I like those) then I'm seriously disappointed in him.

Quote:

In 2001 Cambridge University Press published Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which I thought was a perfect debate topic for the Skeptics Society public lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. The problem was that all the top environmental organizations refused to participate. "There is no debate," one spokesperson told me. "We don't want to dignify that book," another said. One leading environmentalist warned me that my reputation would be irreparably harmed if I went through with it. So of course I did.

Good for you!

Quote:

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance.

WTF? He attacks religion but then joins a newer and crappier version. It would be one thing if he looked at some science that no one else saw but NO it was Al Gore's BS debunked special effects movie.

So I'm now religious because I think that anthropogenic global warming is a strongly supported scientific theory?

I don't care what Al Gore thinks, I wasn't persuaded by 'An Inconvenient Truth' at the time, I made my mind up reading primary sources and the balance of evidence shifted strongly. This was assisted by the dishonesty of the 'Great Global Warming Swindle', which showed the vacuity of "sceptical" arguments.

A sceptic is open minded, they aren't politically driven contrarians. You have made your mind up because of your right wing political beliefs and tar your opponents as communists and deep green religious fanatics. You misread climate denial into scientific uncertainty, communist plots into any political action, and throw ad hominem arguments about Thom Yorke and Al Gore into the discussion as if they have any effect on the debate.

Thanks for admitting (in your own way) that the end of the world scenarios are bull. It may come as a shock to you but people don't like being lied to and fleeced even if it's good intentions [cough...cough].

You are by far the worse offender of this type of thinking. I know you don't see it, and everyone is pointing it out to you, but you are the most "religious" one here when it comes to this topic. You are the one that embraces the fleecing. Sorry to break it to you I can tell you haven't taken much science in your life by the things you fall for... You have posted some really really really crappy "science". Not only on this topic, but on others as well. "Science" that most people see the blaring obvious holes in. You've posted blatanly racist, homophobic, and agenda driven "science" since day one. So you may be one of those that never see the light, or some day you might, you have dropped the homophobic "science" so there is still hope for you yet...

But you missed my point in this post. Like A_Wanderer said, the majority of us don't give a shit what Al Gore says, he may have shined a spot light on the topic and good for him, but we know he's not the expert, that is something you and Rush haven't quite figured out yet.

That isn't uniformly true about skeptics, scientists or humans in general. Some of the most bigoted, slanderous utterances I've ever read about religion, faith or prayer I read in the pages of Skeptic magazine. On the other hand, I love their articles about alternative medicines, paranormal activity and UFOs.

I admit I have biases (subjects which I've decided to be true or most likely false). Scientists and skeptics should too, especially when dealing with speculative science like climate change.

Now I would love to see this debate presented in a politically uncontaminated manner but I fear that is all but impossible given the geopolitical, industrial, human and monetary concerns at stake. So for now I must judge them by the company they keep (communists, socialists, radical environmentalists, dictators, third-world kleptocrats and of course BVS) and their presentation (Apocalyptic movies, commercials with polar bears falling out of the sky and the hysteria over SUVs and other examples of sheer enviro-guilt).

You are by far the worse offender of this type of thinking. I know you don't see it, and everyone is pointing it out to you, but you are the most "religious" one here when it comes to this topic. You are the one that embraces the fleecing. Sorry to break it to you I can tell you haven't taken much science in your life by the things you fall for... You have posted some really really really crappy "science".

I'm not for the fleecing because I want cheap energy for everyone, including poor countries. Anyone with half a brain can tell that the U.N. is pushing agenda driven science precisely because they don't live the lifestyles they are telling everyone else to live, INCLUDING THE SCIENTISTS and they stand to make a lot of money simply from regulations. How about making money for making products that people want?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

But you missed my point in this post. Like A_Wanderer said, the majority of us don't give a shit what Al Gore says, he may have shined a spot light on the topic and good for him, but we know he's not the expert, that is something you and Rush haven't quite figured out yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

I have said a million times, everyone knows(or should be smart enough to figure out) that people put urgency behind issues in order for things to get done, otherwise we would all be like you and wait until it's too late and our oil has run out.

I'm confused so is it a real problem based on real science or is it because we are running out of oil?

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

We don't know everything about the climate system, but we can say with confidence that our carbon dioxide emissions are effecting climates and will have an impact on ocean acidity. The implication of having a complex and dynamic climate system isn't that you can ignore an input (such as more CO2), but that we will have unforseen outcomes that ripple through the system; pushing climate beyond 2 degrees will impact the biosphere and it could trigger a mass extinction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

So I'm now religious because I think that anthropogenic global warming is a strongly supported scientific theory?

Is it a strongly supported theory? Climate change can be natural yet you state "we don't know everything about the climate system, but we can say with confidence". I don't think estimating natural climate variability in models is as good as doing actual measurements of what the climate is actually doing which is what Lindzen and Christy are working on. I also posted a peer-reviewed study that casts doubt on your ocean acidification argument. I wouldn't assume it's strongly supported.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

I don't care what Al Gore thinks, I wasn't persuaded by 'An Inconvenient Truth' at the time, I made my mind up reading primary sources and the balance of evidence shifted strongly. This was assisted by the dishonesty of the 'Great Global Warming Swindle', which showed the vacuity of "sceptical" arguments.

If Al Gore is not persuasive why post Shermer being convinced by Al Gore?

BTW I don't think the skeptical arguments are vacuous and the Great Global Warming Swindle is holding up better than Al Gore's movie. They make more sense than singling out C02 and saying it's warmer now than 1000 years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

A sceptic is open minded, they aren't politically driven contrarians. You have made your mind up because of your right wing political beliefs and tar your opponents as communists and deep green religious fanatics. You misread climate denial into scientific uncertainty, communist plots into any political action, and throw ad hominem arguments about Thom Yorke and Al Gore into the discussion as if they have any effect on the debate.

The current peer-review system is a joke and my comments about Thom Yorke have to do with hypocrisy which is important to point out as often as necessary. Also I've posted plenty of videos with actual communists who are open about it in Copenhagen so I don't think it is out of step since all this "science" leads to public policy. Who do you think Maurice Strong is? The divide is mostly between the left and the right.

I've seen so many debates and I don't find these scientists convincing because the claims about C02 don't work and having Gavin Schmidt admit what Flannery admited about the climate models can't help but make most sane people suspicious. Bad predictions about the past 8 years and James Hansen in 1988 talking about New York being underwater by 2008 isn't just Al Gore. Scientists can make big claims. This alarmism (which has been happening for decades) ruins science. People don't like worrying about the end of the world to find out that it was a theory greatly stretched.

Anyways you said you don't believe in cap and trade so what do you believe is a solution to this "problem"? We know that C02 is going to considerably increase even with cap and trade and even if there was a treaty with the targets that were aimed at in Copenhagen.

Is it a strongly supported theory? Climate change can be natural yet you state "we don't know everything about the climate system, but we can say with confidence". I don't think estimating natural climate variability in models is as good as doing actual measurements of what the climate is actually doing which is what Lindzen and Christy are working on. I also posted a peer-reviewed study that casts doubt on your ocean acidification argument. I wouldn't assume it's strongly supported.

The measurement of observed effects in the atmosphere and biosphere, coupled with the exclusion of other explanations (it isn't caused by solar cycles as the warming has increased as solar activity decreased, volcanoes don't emit enough CO2 by an order of magnitude, to take two common claims), and the evidence for an increase in CO2 driven by human emissions makes global warming a coherent theory. The way that the observations fit together so well improves the confidence that global warming is real.

And a paper which you posted found that calcite dissolution effected a significant number of organisms exposed to high concentrations of dissolved CO2, but the varied response (some organisms showed thickening) demonstrates that there are gaps in knowledge about how plants and animals will be effected by more CO2 in the atmosphere. The paper wasn't saying that ocean acidification was a hoax, it was saying that some organisms might do better than others in a lower pH future, which makes it very hard to predict how food webs will be impacted. You're either ignorant or dishonest if you think the paper you linked to disproves the fact of ocean acidification, and are in a very weak position to be accusing the scientific community of being lying communist stooges.

extreme weather events (decreasing), sea ice melting patterns, glacial retreat (actually increasing now, especially in Antarctica), earlier breeding times for different species (compare it with what? Don't we need information going back to prehistory to see the enormous changes that affect animals naturally to make a proper comparison?) The problem is that much of this could be natural but computer models are so inaccurate can we trust them? The only way scientists can say it's out of the realm of natural variability is by removing prior warming periods. How did polar bears survive warmer periods in the past?

BTW you also need to answer my prior question. If you don't like cap and trade then what should we do? You posted before someone else stating that we should act as a precaution. Act how?

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

The measurement of observed effects in the atmosphere and biosphere, coupled with the exclusion of other explanations (it isn't caused by solar cycles as the warming has increased as solar activity decreased, volcanoes don't emit enough CO2 by an order of magnitude, to take two common claims), and the evidence for an increase in CO2 driven by human emissions makes global warming a coherent theory. The way that the observations fit together so well improves the confidence that global warming is real.

And a paper which you posted found that calcite dissolution effected a significant number of organisms exposed to high concentrations of dissolved CO2, but the varied response (some organisms showed thickening) demonstrates that there are gaps in knowledge about how plants and animals will be effected by more CO2 in the atmosphere. The paper wasn't saying that ocean acidification was a hoax, it was saying that some organisms might do better than others in a lower pH future, which makes it very hard to predict how food webs will be impacted .

The study I posted put ocean acidification catastrophe idea into major uncertainty and you've just admitted it. Another couple of questions. How come there is life much further under the ocean even near underwater volcanos that increase the acidity? Adaptation right? How come there was more C02 during the Cambrian period (meaning in the ocean as well) and life? Adaptation right?

Here's some more on ocean acidification compared to the past:

Quote:

What was learned

As shown in the accompanying figure, the δ11B-derived pH values for the South China Sea fluctuated between a pH of 7.91 and 8.29 during the past seven thousand years, revealing a large natural fluctuation in this parameter that is nearly four times the 0.1 pH unit decline the acidification alarmists predict should have occurred since pre-industrial times.

There is still too much natural variability to make large claims. Of course I'm all for continuing to study what happens but until we get a handle on what we can't control (look at those variations) alarmist claims should not be made. How did life survive those other dips in pH?

In light of these several diverse and independent assessments of the two major aspects of the ocean acidification hypothesis -- a CO2-induced decline in oceanic pH that leads to a concomitant decrease in coral growth rate -- it would appear that the catastrophe conjured up by the world's climate alarmists is but a wonderful work of fiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

You're either ignorant or dishonest if you think the paper you linked to disproves the fact of ocean acidification, and are in a very weak position to be accusing the scientific community of being lying communist stooges.

NO. Socialists use scientists (who want funding) to prove catestrophic global warming or any catestrophic claim in order to scare money into a world government that they just tried to create in Copenhagen and want to do in Mexico City. All a scientist has to do is to want funding and to do anything to preserve that cash flow to be corrupted. Not all scientists are this way but enough are.

A scientist doesn't have to be a socialist to be corrupted by money and ocean acidification has more natural variability than future predictions. Can we really be certain about mass extinctions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

You're a child when it comes to science.

Is this about scaring people into replacing oil or is this about anthropogenic climate change? After your statements I don't think it's childish to ask.

Now I would love to see this debate presented in a politically uncontaminated manner but I fear that is all but impossible given the geopolitical, industrial, human and monetary concerns at stake. So for now I must judge them by the company they keep (communists, socialists, radical environmentalists, dictators, third-world kleptocrats and of course BVS) and their presentation (Apocalyptic movies, commercials with polar bears falling out of the sky and the hysteria over SUVs and other examples of sheer enviro-guilt).

is this something you'd say about A_W, clearly the only genuine scientist on the board?

It's not scientific to recognize that it's important to replace oil? It's only a part of it, but I don't think it's wrong to recognize that we're going to run out of fossil fuels.

There are better ways in dealing with new technologies than cap and trade. Certainly we don't need a world government to have research funding. Even research funding will have to go in many areas because we also have other under the radar technologies proposed by Craig Venter who wants to use bacteria that convert C02 to octane. It's more efficient to do it this way than give third world countries money (who have a history of putting funds into Swiss bank accounts) to supposedly help with climate change. It would also make sense to control spending since we are talking about money that the U.S. doesn't even have. It's pretty obvious that China is enjoying their position at spanking Obama for that precise reason or whether we are talking about government bonds.

Then we have the problem that billions want to get out of poverty and cheap energy now is the best way. Humans are a species on this planet as well and the 3rd world wants what we have.